Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will put my note on the record and we can have an exchange at that point. This amendment proposes that the rate of mineral oil tax applied to non-propellant uses of kerosine be reduced to zero until 31 October 2023. It also seeks the reduction in the rate of motor oil tax applied to marked gas oil from €131.47 per 1,000 litres to €111,14 per 1,000 litres until the same date, the end of October this year.

As the Deputy will be aware, mineral oil tax comprises carbon and non-carbon components. The carbon component is generally referred to as carbon tax and the non-carbon component is often referred to as fuel excise or fuel duty. Regarding the Deputy's proposal to set the motor oil tax rate on kerosine to zero, it should be noted that the motor oil tax on kerosine comprises the carbon tax alone, as no non-carbon charge applies to this fuel. Furthermore, the proposal to set a rate of 11 cent per litre on marked gas oil would also undermine the carbon tax regime.

As the Deputy will be aware, the significant rise in energy prices we have seen in the past year is attributable to external global market factors. The long-term carbon tax policy sets out gradual annual increases to the carbon tax rate. The 2020 programme for Government committed to increasing the amount charged per tonne of carbon dioxide emissions from fuels to €100 by 2030. The Government followed through on this commitment by introducing the legislation in the Finance Act of 2020 to provide a ten-year trajectory for carbon tax increases to reach €100 per tonne of carbon dioxide by 2030. This measure is a key pillar underpinning the Government's climate action plan to halve emissions by 2030 and reach net zero no later than 2050.

It is important to note that a significant proportion of carbon tax revenue is allocated for expenditure on targeted welfare measures and energy-efficiency measures, which not only support the most vulnerable households in society but also, in the long term, provide support against fuel-price impacts by reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. Removing the carbon tax for the period in question would not effectively address the current fuel-price trends and would affect revenues allocated for expenditure on fuel-poverty prevention. Therefore, I cannot accept the Deputy's amendment.

The difference is that we are seeking to uphold the policy on the carbon tax because we see the benefits from an expenditure point of view regarding the resources the tax provides to deal with the fuel poverty, invest in environmental methods of farming and support the just transition. On budget day every year, my former Department, the Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform, publishes a paper setting out exactly where the money is spent. If we start making changes and undermining that revenue base, the whole principle will no longer be valid. That is the main reason I am not going to accept the Deputy's amendment. There are other ways in which we are supporting households to meet the cost of living. We do not need to go through all of that, or perhaps we can, but it is important to protect the revenue from the carbon tax because of the reasons for which it is being used.